HESPERIA 75 (2006) THE ARISTOTELES - ascsa.edu.gr · HESPERIA 75 (2006) Pages 379-395 THE ARISTOTELES DECREE AND THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND ATHENIAN LEAGUE ABSTRACT The left lateral

HESPERIA 75 (2006) Pages 379-395

THE ARISTOTELES

DECREE AND THE

EXPANSION OF THE

SECOND ATHENIAN

LEAGUE

ABSTRACT

The left lateral face of the Aristoteles Decree stele {IG IP 43), the most impor tant epigraphic source for the Second Athenian League, presents numerous

problems of interpretation. The author attempts here to establish the order in

which members of the League were listed on that face and to link them with

campaigns described in the literary sources, offering a possible restoration for

the name inscribed in line 111 and later erased. A contemporary inscription from Athens points to the Parians, who were also listed on the front of the

stone. Thus, the erasure was intended to correct a mistake of repetition.

The stele of the Aristoteles Decree (Fig. 1) is our principal epigraphic evi

dence for the Second Athenian League, and since its discovery and initial

publication more than 150 years ago it has shed a great deal of light on the

affairs of Athens and Greece during the first half of the 4th century b.c.1

It has also raised many questions, both epigraphic and historical, especially with regard to the specific names of members and their dates of entry into

the League. Both the stone and the organization whose existence it records

have received intense scholarly scrutiny over the years.2 In this article I

focus on the names of member city-states, leagues, and individuals that

appear on the left lateral face of the stone (lines 97-134), both to establish

the order in which the names were inscribed and to attempt to link the

campaigns of Athenian generals recorded in the literature with the ap

pearance of names on the stele. My findings support a possible solution to

1.1 would like to thank Jeremy

Mclnerney for his assistance and

encouragement in preparing this article;

Stephen Tracy for taking the time to

examine the stele of the Aristoteles

Decree and to share his opinions with

me; Glen Bowersock and Christian

Habicht for granting me access to

pho

tographs, and the Epigraphical Muse

um in Athens for permission to use them;

and the anonymous Hesperia referees

for their valuable suggestions, especially

concerning the Paros inscription. 2. IG IP 43. The reconstructed stele

stands in the entry hall of the Epi graphical Museum (EM 10397). The

most recent publications of the decree

include Rhodes and Osborne 2003 (no. 22), Mitchel 1984, Horsley 1982, and

Cargill 1981; see Cargill 1996 for a

fuller listing. The text on which I rely for this article is that of Mitchel 1984,

based on Cargill 1981 (see Cargill 1996 for the differences and for several typo

graphical errors in Mitchel's text, none

of which is crucial for my purposes). I retain the consecutive numbering of

Cargill, however (as do Rhodes and

Osborne), rather than designating sides

A and B as Mitchel does. Full-length treatments of the Second Athenian

League include Cargill 1981, Accame

1941, Marshall 1905, and Busolt 1874.

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

380 CHRISTOPHER A. BARON

?OPUS lo i .

W;

pepiM-kHJjg

? mi

ft; :%p ?

im-*--. . ?Tu-f..,:.

^1i?V

Figure 1. The stele of the Aristoteles

Decree (IG IP 43 = EM 10397). Lines 97-134 appear on the left

lateral face. Courtesy Epigraphical

Museum, Athens

THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 381

one of the key problems presented by the stone: the name inscribed?and

later erased?in line 111.

The entries on the left lateral face of the stele present numerous

problems of reconstruction and interpretation. The 30 entries that survive

here in part or in full most likely reflect the original number. The highest

entry, in line 97 (continuing to line 98), appears at the same level as the

first line of the main body of the decree on the front of the stone (line 7).

Twenty-eight entries follow in 32 successive lines with relatively regular

spacing. Then, after a space of 0.26 m (equal to about 16 lines of text on

the front of the stone), there occurs the lowest entry, stretching over four

lines, the first of which is at the same level as line 79 on the front?that

is, the line containing the entry for the Chians, the first of all the member

names inscribed on the stone.

The major questions concerning the left lateral face of the stele include

the following: the order in which the entries were inscribed; whether all

the entries were inscribed at the same time and, if not, what groups of

simultaneously inscribed entries can be detected, and when those groups were inscribed; and what name of a city, league, or individual was originally

inscribed in line 111 and later erased.

Most scholars agree that there were at least three different hands

involved in inscribing the entries on the left face: the highest (comprising lines 97-98) and the lowest (comprising lines 131-134) differ from each

other and from the rest of the entries. These two entries are also crucial for

determining the order in which the entire face was inscribed, so I will discuss

those first before turning to the bulk of the names (lines 99-130).

LINES 131-134: THE DEMOS OF THE ZAKYNTHIANS IN/ON THE NELLOS

Upon the conclusion of the Peace of 375/4 b.c., the Athenians sent envoys to Corcyra to recall the general Timotheos. On his way back to Athens

he intervened in an episode of factional strife on the island of Zakynthos,

installing a group of exiled democrats at a fortified site on the island (or per

haps the mainland nearby). Timotheos s actions ultimately led to a renewal

of hostilities, as the Zakynthians in the city complained to Sparta, who

sent a fleet to assist them.3

The Zakynthians appear on the stele of the Aristoteles Decree as "the

demos of (the) Zakynthians in/on the Nellos."4 This entry, which of all

those on the stone was most clearly inscribed at a separate time, is also the

most enigmatic. Commentators often describe the hand as "sloppy."5 Other

unique or distinctive attributes of the entry include the reference to "the

demos" (repeated on the surviving parts of the stone only in lines 97-98), the reference to a particular locale (an otherwise unknown one at that),

3. Xen. Hell. 6.2.2-3; Diod. Sic.

15.45.2-4. The bibliography on this

episode, part of the tangled chain of

events of the years 375-371, is large.

For detailed examinations, see Sealey

1957, pp. 99-104; Cawkwell 1963; Mitchel 1981;Tuplin 1984; Stylianou

1998, pp. 346-357; and Fauber 1999

(with further references).

4. Lines 131-134: Zaio)v[8]?cov | ? ?fjuo? I ? ?v tan Nr|X,?,|coi.

5.E.g.,Cargilll981,p.44.


and its placement on the stone (see below).6 For my present purpose, I am concerned mostly with what we can conclude about when this entry

was inscribed relative to the others on the left side. Silvio Accame as

sumed from its position at the bottom of the left face that it was the latest

entry, and that it therefore provided a terminus ante quern for the entire

list, which he placed in autumn 375.7 This conclusion is easily refuted,

however, for two reasons: (1) we cannot be certain that this was the latest

entry (chronologically) on the stone, and (2) we should not assume that the

entry was made immediately after (or at any time after) the intervention

of Timotheos at Zakynthos.

First, regarding the relative order of the entries on the left lateral face, A. Geoffrey Woodhead pointed out in 1957 that the Zakynthian entry occurs on a level with that of the Chians, the first entry on the front of the

stele.8 Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that the Zakynthian demos was

the first entry on the left side rather than the last. Raphael Sealey conjectures that the mason "did not see names higher up on the left face and append his entry to them; on the contrary, he saw names only on the front and

inscribed his entry on their level to associate it with them."9 Jack Cargill has commented that there is no certain epigraphic evidence that this was

the case; but it remains difficult to explain why this entry would have been

placed at that level after the inscribing of the ones above it.10 The distinctive

nature of the entry cannot be used to explain the separation, since other

entries that are different in some way appear in the list of names on the

left side: "[the d]emos of (the) [- -]raians" (lines 97-98); cities or leagues with the preposition "from" appended (lines 101-102,128-129); genitive

plural ethnics followed by one or more cities on the corresponding island

(lines 107-108,119-122); and the names of individuals (lines 109-110).

Thus, the most likely explanation for the placement of the Zakynthian

entry remains that suggested by Woodhead and supported by Cawkwell

and Sealey: it was the first to be inscribed on the left side.

As far as the absolute date of the entry is concerned, there is no need

to assume, as Accame did, that it occurred upon Timotheos's return from

the Ionian Sea in 375/4. It is possible that the Zakynthians were already members of the League when he set out on his voyage in early summer 375, and perhaps an additional reason for his campaign that year was to support the democratic faction in their efforts to return to their native city.11 In

fact, this scenario would make more sense of what we know of Timotheoss

actions. If part of his original mission had been to restore the Zakynthian

exiles, he may have felt compelled to achieve something on this front before

returning to Athens, despite the fact that a peace had just been concluded.

But rather than stop and lay siege to the city?which would constitute an

open and obvious violation of the terms of the peace?he simply installed

the exiles somewhere on the island, hoping that such an action would not

cause a renewed outbreak of hostilities but would still allow him to claim

some measure of success in Athens. When the Zakynthians ruling the city

appealed to Sparta, however,Timotheoss halfhearted attempt at keeping the peace was interpreted by the Spartans as a full breach of it. In sum, we

should not take the notices of Timotheos s actions at Zakynthos as reliable

indicators of an absolute date for this entry.

6. Cargill 1981, pp. 44, 64-66. On

the identification of the Nellos, see

Mitchel 1981. 7. Accame 1941, p. 86. Fauber

(1999, pp. 495-496) has recently resur

rected this argument, but he fails to

offer a reason for the peculiar location

of the entry. 8. Woodhead 1957, p. 371, n. 15.

The same point was made by Sealey

(1957, p. 105), who credits Cawkwell for the observation; Cawkwell himself

later put the argument in print (1963,

p. 88). Woodhead, on the other hand,

remained reluctant to draw any firm

conclusion from his observation (1962,

pp. 265-266). 9. Sealey 1993, p. 62. 10. Cargill 1981, p. 44. 11. Cawkwell 1963, p. 88; Sealey

1993, p. 62; Mitchel 1981, pp. 75-76.


LINES 97-98: THE DEMOS OF THE [- -]RAIANS

If the Zakynthian entry represents the first to have been inscribed on the

left lateral face, we are led to conclude that the highest entry, "[the d]emos of (the) [- -]raians" (lines 97-98), was the second.12 But to which city does

this entry refer? The history of scholarly attempts to reconstruct this entry is a fascinating topic in itself. The first publication of the Aristoteles Decree,

by Eustratiades in 1852, printed ['Epu9]paicov.13 Of course, this can be ruled

out on historical grounds, since Erythrai, in Asia Minor, would have been

considered a possession of the King by the terms of the King's Peace. But

a more harmful mistake went unnoticed; the drawing published with the

inscription placed the break of the stone farther to the right than it actu

ally is, giving the impression that there was room for about five missing letters. This may have led the next editor of the inscription, Rangab?, to

propose [KepKujpocicov for the entry, since this seemed to match both the

literary accounts of Timotheos's campaign of 375 in the northwest and

the independent epigraphic evidence of an Athenian-Corcyrean alliance

at this time (IG II2 96 and 97).14 Scholars universally accepted Rangab?'s proposal until 1967, when

John Coleman and Donald Bradeen measured the stone and proved that

it had room for "the restoration of only two, or possibly three, letters."15

Their own proposal was [?njpaicov, which is certainly feasible epigraphi

cally, and which most scholars have recognized to be historically possible as

well.16 Since then, Fordyce Mitchel has made a detailed argument in favor

of [Oe]pocicov, the Thessalian city ruled by Jason during the 370s, while

Germana Scuccimarra has argued for [IT?pJpa?cov, a city on Lesbos known

to have been a member of the League.17 For my present purpose, it is not

necessary to come to a conclusion about this entry, since the name inscribed

here does not affect my proposed restoration for line 111.

LINES 99-130: ONE HAND OR SEVERAL?

In their 1967 article, Coleman and Bradeen also mention in passing that

lines 97-98 appear to have been inscribed by a different hand from the one

responsible for those immediately below.18 This leads us to the final batch of

entries on the stone, those found in lines 99-130 (Fig. 2), and the question of how many hands inscribed them, and when. Scholarly opinion on this

12. Lines 97-98: [- -]pa?cov I [?

?]%o?. 13. See esp. Coleman and Bradeen

1967; Cargill 1981, pp. 40-41; Mitchel 1984.

14. Coleman and Bradeen 1967,

p. 102, pi. 30.


p. 103.

16. See, e.g., Cargill 1981, pp. 40

41; Horsley 1982, p. 142; Cargill

1996, p. 45 and n. 38.

17. Mitchel 1984; Scuccimarra 1987-1988. See Cargill 1996, pp. 45

47, for discussion of each suggestion.

Cargill's proposed scenario (1981,

pp. 41, 64-66), that lines 97-98 were

inscribed last (i.e., after all those

below), seems extremely unlikely epi

graphically; it completely ignores the

alignment of the top entry with the

main body of the decree on the front of

the stone, and therefore, despite his assertion to the contrary (p. 66),

does indeed do "violence to the epi

graphic evidence." See Mitchel 1984,

p. 49, n. 29; CargilTs response (1996,

p. 47, n. 45), that his is one of many

"inferences" that could be made, adds

nothing. 18. Coleman and Bradeen 1967,

p. 104.

CHRISTOPHER A. BARON

Figure 2. Lines 97-130 of the Aristo

teles Decree. Courtesy Epigraphical Museum, Athens

issue over the past century has been divided between one hand and several

hands at work. Those who see evidence for more than one stonecutter have

generally argued for various groups of entries inscribed at different times; those who see no such evidence believe that all the names between lines

99 and 130 were cut at the same time by the same hand.19

The issue is difficult to resolve, in part because the question of what

criteria should be used to determine the hand(s) at work on the left side

19. One hand at work (cf. n. 24,

below): Accame 1941, p. 86; Cargill 1981, p. 41; Cawkwell 1981, p. 42. Several hands: Woodhead 1957,

pp. 371-372; Tod, GHI123; Coleman and Bradeen 1967, p. 104; Horsley 1982, p. 142; Mitchel 1984, pp. 40, 51.


of the stone has never been fully addressed. Ernst Fabricius, the first to

discuss the number of hands involved, despite noting "sharper" or "thicker"

lettering at certain points, did not believe that these variations signified a

different mason at work.20 Woodhead focused on the spacing of the letters

to distinguish two groups of entries, one above the erasure at line 111 and

another below.21 Coleman and Bradeen addressed only a break they saw

after line 98, describing the letters in the first entry as "slightly smaller, more deeply cut and more widely spaced" than those immediately below.22

Mitchel argued for four groups of entries based on the observations made

by Fabricius, without any further detailed evidence.23

The focus on the issue of how many hands were involved in inscrib

ing the entries has diverted attention from the larger question of the time

frame involved. As I stated above, those positing various hands at work

have argued for groups of entries appearing on the stone at different times;

conversely, those who consider all the entries to have been inscribed by the same hand have assumed that all the entries were therefore listed on

the stone at the same time.24 This would, of course, offer the simplest scenario; on the other hand, it is not out of the realm of possibility that a

single mason inscribed all the names on the left side of the stele (except the last), but did so at different times. In fact, the lettering of these entries

may provide a clue that this was indeed the case.

Stephen Tracy found in a recent examination of the stone that the

lettering in all the entries on the left side (minus the last) is consistent

20. Near the end of his article on

the Second Athenian League, Fabricius

(1891, p. 598) states that all the entries on the left side of the stone, other than

the last, were inscribed by the same

hand at the same time: if we did not

have the Zakynthian entry, he writes,

"so w?rde Niemand auf den Gedanken

kommen, dass das Vezeichniss [sie]

nicht zu einer und derselben Zeit von

einem und demselben Steinmetzen

eingehauen w?re." He goes on to note

that the letters appear to become

sharper ("sch?rfer") at line 99 and

thicker ("dicker") at line 106. But he does not attribute these changes

to a

different mason, for he continues, "Ein

zweiter Arbeiter ... hat dann schliess

lich die vier letzten Zeilen 35-38 ...

hinzugef?gt." In other words, Fabri

cius saw only two masons at work:

one for lines 97-130, and a second for

lines 131-134. Finally, in the next

paragraph, he restates his conclusion

that all the entries on the left side of

the stone except the last were inscribed

at the same time, in the second half of

375 b.c.

21. Woodhead 1957, pp. 371-372.


p. 104.

23. Mitchel 1984, pp. 40,51. Mitchel appears to have misread

Fabricius, however, since he cites the

German scholar in support of his own

argument for different hands inscribing various groups of entries at different

times. He writes, for example (p. 49, n. 29), "Accame, since he is one of those

who (contrary to the observations of

Fabricius) claims that all the names

(save the Zakynthian demos) on Face B

were cut at the same time by the same

hand,' weakens his own argument.... Likewise Cargill's account suffers from

his not following Fabricius' acute and

accurate observations in distinguishing the groups of lettering in lines B 3-34

in spite of their superficial similarity." Mitchel also states (p. 51) that Fabri

cius "was able to pick

out subtle but

important differences in the 'hands'

which inscribed Face B, where later

scholars have been content to say: 'All

at the same time.'" Cf. above, n. 20.

24. See, e.g., Accame 1941, p. 86:

"I nomi incisi nella facciata laterale ri

salgono tutti, all'infuori dell'ultimo ...,

a una stessa mano che non compare mai nella facciata principale; furono

dunque registrad di seguito dallo stesso

lapicida." Cargill, taking issue with the

groups proposed by Woodhead, as

serted in his 1981 book that "all the names [in lines 99-130] appear to have

been cut by the same hand, and it is

reasonable to infer from this that they were all cut at the same time" (p. 41;

cf. pp. 61, 64). He backtracks somewhat

from this view in his 1996 article, where he accepts that Mitchel (sup

posedly following Fabricius, but see

above, n. 22) is correct in pointing out

some difference in the cutting of the

letters beginning at line 106; but he

goes on (p. 48) to maintain that the

differences are not so great as to

necessitate a different mason or any

passage of time. See also Cawkwell

(1981, p. 42), who states that "all the

names above the Zakynthian entry were cut

by the same stone-cutter,"

and goes on to conclude (p. 43) that

"it is somewhat more likely that the

same hand cut this group of names

at much the same time than in two

different years."


enough to represent the work of one man. In his opinion, the variations

in the size and depth of the lettering claimed by Coleman and Bradeen (at line 99) and by Mitchel (at lines 99 and 106) do not appear significant

enough to necessitate positing a new mason. Tracy points out, however, that

we are not forced to conclude that all the entries were therefore inscribed

at the same time. In fact, he indicates a possible break at line 111: "The

erased line does seem to my eye to mark a break. The lines below it are

quite uniform in spacing and thickness and I suspect are likely to have been

inscribed all at one time. The lines above are less uniform."25 This echoes

the observations made almost 50 years ago by Woodhead, who argued that

the spacing of the letters after the erasure (lines 112-130) shows a tendency to begin as far to the left as possible "and to preserve a quasi-stoichedon

arrangement of the letters."26 The names above the erasure, on the other

hand, appeared to Woodhead "more generously spaced ... in order to give

them a better proportion in relation to the longer names of the group."27 From the various arguments put forward by scholars over the years, we

must acknowledge that a consensus on the number of hands at work on

the left side of the stone may never be reached. Given the observations of

two eminent epigraphers regarding the lettering, however, the possibility remains open of a passage in time between the inscribing of different groups of entries on the left lateral face, especially between those above line 111

and those below. If this is the case, can we reconstruct the circumstances

of the inscribing of these groups by matching them with the accounts of

Athenian campaigns found in the literary sources? I should remind the

reader that hereafter I will be reconstructing groups on the basis of histori

cal, not epigraphic, evidence.28

The Thraceward Group (Lines 99-105)

Based on Diodoros s narrative (15.36.4), it is possible to assign the entry of the members listed in lines 99-105?Abderites, Thasians, Chalki

dians from Thrace, Ainians, Samothracians, and Dikaiopolitans?into the

League as the result of the efforts of Chabrias in this area in 375 b.c.29

This is not to deny the possibility of voluntary accessions to the League; but even such accessions could have been encouraged by the sense of either

security or fear inspired by the presence of an Athenian fleet. The only

city in the group specifically mentioned by Diodoros is Abdera, where, as he relates, Chabrias appeared at a crucial moment in the Abderites'

struggle withThracian barbarians. Thasos has traditionally been restored in

line 100 based on a reference in [Dem.] 12.17 (the letter from Philip to

the Athenians), where it is mentioned along with Maroneia (found on the

stele at line 87) in a context that implies that both were members of the

25. S. V. Tracy (pers. comm.).

26. Woodhead 1957, p. 371. 27. Woodhead 1957, p. 372. See

Cargill 1981, p. 41, for criticism of

Woodhead s groups: "The same letter

forms are employed throughout all

these lines (notably epsilon, kappa, nu,

and phi), and the variations in spacing indicate no pattern I can see.... There

is no epigraphic

reason to divide the

names into two groups." He maintains

his objections in his 1996 article, with

out further elaboration (pp. 47-48).

28. See Woodhead 1962 for a simi lar treatment and for previous literature.

29. Marshall 1905, pp. 60-69;

Horsley 1982, p. 142; but see Cawkwell

1981, pp. 42-43, for doubts.


League.30 Lines 101-102 probably refer to the Chalkidian League rather

than the city of Chalkis.31 Ainos lay on the Thracian coast northeast of

Samothrace, and Dikaiopolis was probably situated on the coast between

Abdera and Maroneia.32 Thus we have a group of six members who, either

voluntarily or through the persuasion of Chabrias, entered the League in

the summer of 375 b.c.

The Northwest Group (Lines 106-110)

Immediately after narrating Chabrias's exploits, Diodoros relates that

Timotheos "having sailed to Kephallenia brought over to his side the

cities there and likewise persuaded those in Akarnania to incline toward

Athens."33 He then goes on to state that Timotheos also made friends of

Alketas, king of the Molossians, and "won over the lands of the cities of

those regions,"34 after which he won a naval battle against the Spartans near Leukas. Xenophon, apparently narrating the same campaign of 375,

makes no mention of Kephallenia, Akarnania, or Molossia; instead, he states

that Timotheos "having sailed around [the P?loponn?se] straightaway put

Corcyra under his control,"35 treating the island, however, in a moderate

and humane way. We then hear of Timotheos's naval victory and his plac

ing of a trophy at Alyzeia (5.4.64-66). The issues surrounding these two narratives, their relationship to the

names on the stele of the Aristoteles Decree, and subsequent events in the

area (especially concerning Corcyra) are varied and complex. It is sufficient

here to show that the four entries comprising lines 106-110 can clearly be

linked to this campaign of Timotheos in 375. In addition to the historians'

accounts, we have the record of an Athenian decree of August/September 375 offering the Corcyreans, the Akarnanians, and the Kephallenians admission to the League.36 The problem, of course, is that not all of

these names appear on the stele. Cargill proposed that the absence of the

Corcyreans can be explained by the fact that they never became members

of the League; the same would then hold true for the cities of Kephallenia other than Pronnoi, which is the only one to appear at this point on the

stele.37 Another possibility is that these names were inscribed on parts of

the front of the stele that are now missing. While Corcyra could conceiv

ably have been listed there, however, it is highly improbable that the three

cities of Kephallenia other than Pronnoi (entries that would take up four

lines) all appeared on the front of the stele, since space must be reserved

for several Aegean islands and cities known to have been members of the

30. Cargill 1981, p. 42. 31. Cargill 1981, p. 42; Accame

1941, p. 87. This, as well as the pres ence of the Akarnanians in line 106,

raises the question of how the member

ship of such federal koina in the League was reconciled with the "free and

autonomous clause" of the Aristoteles

Decree, but the issue is unfortunately outside the scope of this article. See

Mitchel's brief comments on the sub

ject (1984, p. 46, n. 19). 32. Harp.

s.v. AiKai?rcoAic (Dindorf

p. 97, lines 14-16), citing a lost speech

of Lysias. 33. Diod. Sic. 15.36.5: TiuoOeo?

...

nhevcaq ei? xr\v Ke^>aXXr\viav, xa?

x' ?v ai)xr\ Tt?Xeic TipoGriy?yeTO Kai x??

kocx?c xf|v AKapvav?av ojllo?cd? erceiaev

?rcoK^?vai rcpo? AOrrvaioix;.

34. Diod. Sic. 15.36.5: KaO?tan) x??

Xcopa? x?? xcov rcepi xo?? xorcou? ?icei

vo\)? Tc?êcov ?î?ioTtovnoajievo?.

35. Xen. Hell. 5.4.64: ? ji?vxoi Tiuo

0eo? TceputA-euaac K?picopav u?v euO??

\)(p' ?ocoxco ?TCoiTiaaxo.

36. IG IP 96. 37. Cargill 1981, pp. 68-82. For

reactions to his theory, see

Tuplin

1984, pp. 544-566; Fauber 1998.


League.38 In any case, the entries that do appear in lines 106-110?the

Akarnanians, Pronnoi on Kephallenia, Alketas and his heir Neoptol

emos?clearly entered the League in late summer 375 B.c.

The Aegean Group (Lines 112-130)

Before dealing with the epigraphic crux of the left lateral face, the erasure

at line 111,1 will continue the process of matching entries with campaigns

by examining the remaining group on that face. At first glance, the group does not seem to be a very cohesive one. It consists of Cycladic islands?

Andros (112),Tenos (113),Mykonos (115), three cities of Keos (119-122),

Amorgos (124), Siphnos (126), and Sikinos (127); cities from the island

of Lesbos in the eastern Aegean?Antissa (116) and Eresos (117); a city on Euboia?Hestiaia (114); cities from the Chersonese and Propontis

region?Elaious (123) and Selymbria (125); cities on theThracian coast?

Dion (128-129) and Neapolis (130); and a mystery city, that of the Astrai

ousians (118).39 Furthermore, these entries are not arranged on the stone

in any geographic order; in fact, it is difficult to find any organizing prin

ciple. This has led some scholars to lump all these entries in with those

of 375 b.c., that is, those in lines 99-110, attributing their adherence to

the League to the Athenian naval victory at Naxos in September 376, Chabrias s Thracian campaign of 375, and voluntary accessions.40 Those

who recognize the possibility of these entries being added later than 375

usually do so with reservations, or a concession to the possibility of the

earlier date.41 However, I believe it is possible to match this entire group with the record of a specific campaign: that of Timotheos in 373, as recorded

by Diodoros (15.47.2-3).42 The narrative of the campaign found in Diodoros relates that the Athe

nians had sent Timotheos out to bring aid to Corcyra, but before proceeding

there, he sailed toward Thrace (?rci Oponcn?) and brought many cities into

the alliance, along with 30 triremes. At this point, however, he was too late

to fulfill the terms of the alliance with Corcyra, so his command was taken

away.43 Xenophoris account (Hell. 6.2.12-13) is roughly the same, with

some differences in detail and tone. According to him, Timotheos cruised

the islands (eni vfjacov) in order to man his fleet, but the Athenians felt he

was wasting the best time of the year in which to campaign and therefore

took away his command, putting Iphikrates in his place.44

38.Tuplinl984,p.549,n.43. 39. See Brun 1998 for a pro

posed identification of the Astraiou

sians. All these cities are listed in the

form of their plural ethnic.

40. See, e.g., Accame 1941, pp. 99

104; Cargill 1981, pp. 41-42,61-64; Cawkwell 1981, p. 45; Sealey 1993,

p. 61 (differing from his earlier view

[1957, pp. 105-106] that the bulk of the names on the left side were added

in 373). 41. See, e.g., Horsley 1982, p. 142;

Tod, GHI123. 42. See also Woodhead 1957,

p. 370; 1962, p. 259; Marshall 1905,

pp. 60-69.

43. Diod. Sie. 15.47.2-3: ofixo? ??

Tipo xfj? OT>uuaxia? xauxn? nXzvoaq

e7ri Opaicn?, Kai koXXolc, tcoXei? e7ci

<j\>[i[ia%iav 7tpooKocêca|U?vo?, repoa

?9r|K? xpiaKovxa xpir|p?i?/ x?xe ??

KoeG'uoxepcov xf|? x v Kepicupaic?v auu

uaxia? x? u?v 7ipcoxov ?n?fiaXe xrjv

axpaxrjyiav, xox> br\[ioxt xaXencoq repo?

a?xov ?iaxeO?vxo?. Diodoros goes

on to claim that he was reinstated,

but this is not true.

44. Xen. Hell. 6.2.12-13: ? ?'o?

?i)vaji?vo? or?x?Oev x?? va?? nAripcoaai,

?7ri vr|ocov nXevoaq ekeiOev ?7t?ip?xo

a\)U7i?ir|po\)v, oil) (parutaw f|yo\)|i?vo?

E?va? ?re? oDyKEKpoxriji?va? voru? dicfl

7iEpi7CÊ?)aai. o? ?' AOrjva?oi vou??ovxe?

orux?v ?va?toov x?v xfj? copa? e?? x?v

7iEp?7cô'?v xp?vov, a\)YYVc?(ir|v ovk

eo%ov cr?xq), ?XX? TcoroaavxEc orux?v

xfj? axpaxrjyia? 'I(piKp?xr|v ?vGai

powuai.


We have confirmation of the general outlines of the story from a later

prosecution against Timotheos by Apollodoros, preserved as [Dem.] 49.

The speech, probably delivered in 362, shows that Timotheos was put on

trial in late 373 by Iphikrates and Kallistratos for "not sailing around the

P?loponn?se."45 He was acquitted, but his standing was damaged badly

enough to cause him to leave Athens and join forces with Persia. Apol lodoros also provides some detailed information regarding the chronology of events for that year: Timotheos was "ready to sail on his second expedi tion"46 in April/May 373, but was in need of money and therefore obtained

a loan from Apollodoros s father, Pasi?n. At the time when Timotheos was

recalled to Athens for trial, the fleet was at Kalaureia, off the northeastern

coast of the P?loponn?se. The trial itself was held in (or shortly after) November/December 373.47

We can therefore be fairly certain that during the summer and early autumn of 373, Timotheos took the Athenian fleet somewhere in the

Aegean, apparently preparing for an expedition to Corcyra by gathering men, and perhaps also money and new allies. Most recent studies of this

episode have concluded that, whatever his original mission, Timotheos in

the early summer of 373 must not have felt that the situation on Corcyra was urgent; but when the Spartan general Mnasippos attacked Corcyra

later in the year, it appeared to the Athenians (or at least two of their lead

ing politicians) that Timotheos had wasted the summer and left their ally

open to attack.48 One result of this conclusion is that Diodoros is correct, and Xenophon incorrect, on the relative chronology of events: Xenophons narrative jumps from the Peace of 375/4 straight to Mnasippos's invasion

of Corcyra in 373, thereby omitting almost two years'worth of activity that

Diodoros preserves.49 But can we also believe Diodoros on the destina

tion of Timotheos's voyage and his recruitment of new allies? This is an

important question, because the addition of cities from the northern coast

of the Aegean (such as Dion and Neapolis) in 373 rather than 375 would

be difficult to explain if we discount Diodoross phrase ?nx ?paicri? and his

statement concerning

new allies.

P. J. Stylianou, in his commentary on book 15 of the Bibliotheca, sees

Diodoros's reference to Thrace as a "grotesque muddle" and attributes it to

"a confused rendering of an Ephoran passage on Timotheus' successes in

Thrace in the late 360s."50 While Stylianou does not explicitly state why a

voyage to Thrace is so unlikely, it appears that he considers the reference

part of an overly laudatory attitude toward Timotheos evident in several

4th-century sources, presumably due to the influence of Isokrates.51 But

45. [Dem.] 49.9: ?i? x? \?\ Tcepi kXeVGOII nEÔTCOWTlOOV.

46. [Dem.] 49.6: u?Mcov ektcê?v

x?v ?cxepov EK7iXo\)v Tiuo?eoc o?xoo?.

The first expedition was most likely that of 375; cf. 49.8, where Apollodoros refers to Timotheos's second term as

general. 47. Fleet at Kalaureia: [Dem.]

49.13. Trial date: [Dem.] 49.22. See

Tuplin 1984, pp. 538-539.

48. See, e.g., Cawkwell 1963, p. 87;

Woodhead 1962, pp. 260-262; Sealey 1993, p. 66. Alternatively, Fauber

(1999, p. 498) sees the original purpose of the fleet as "the administration of

internal League affairs" and believes

that Timotheos set out into the Aegean before the request for aid from Corcyra

was received. Such a reconstruction, if

correct, would lend further support to

the addition of new members in 373.

49. Fauber 1999, pp. 490-494.

50. Stylianou 1998, p. 372. 51. Stylianou 1998, pp. 119,317.

For praise of Timotheos, see, e.g., Xen. Hell. 5.4.64, Isoc. 15.107, Diod.

Sic. 15.36.6; the most obvious case

of exaggerated praise comes from

Aeschines (2.70), who credits Timo

theos with bringing 75 cities into the

League.

39o CHRISTOPHER A. BARON

if Timotheos did indeed spend the entire summer and more sailing the

Aegean?as it appears he did?then there is no reason to rule out a voyage toward Thrace.52 Stylianous wholesale rejection of Diodoros's account

appears to be a case of hypercriticism. Diodoros makes egregious errors at

times; but, as Woodhead observes, these errors "do not constitute grounds for sweeping aside the whole of Diodorus' narrative as untenable whenever

it happens to be inconvenient."53 We should not dismiss Diodoross state

ments out of hand simply because they conflict with those of Xenophon,

especially in this case. Xenophons phrase eni vt|oc?v is less specific than

Diodoross ?ni ?paierie;; it is well known that Xenophon had no interest

in recording the expansion of the Second Athenian League, and he has

proven to be susceptible to errors in other respects.54 It remains possible, then, that the members listed in lines 112-130

of the stele of the Aristoteles Decree, cities from all around the Aegean, entered the League subsequent to the voyage of Timotheos in 373. The

gap of two years between these entries and the entries above line 111 does

not create any historical problems. The Athenians probably would have

welcomed a respite from the war effort after the Peace of 375/4; in fact,

they were still having trouble funding a campaign in 373.55

LINE 111: THE ERASURE

We are now left with three possibilities for the date of the original entry in line 111: (1) it was inscribed at the same time as the Northwest Group

immediately above it, that is, in late summer/early autumn 375 b.c.;

(2) it was inscribed on its own at some point between early autumn 375

and summer 373; or (3) it was inscribed with the Aegean Group directly below it, that is, in summer 373 or at some point thereafter.56 The second

option, an entry inscribed on its own at some point between late 375 and

summer 373, seems impossible to prove or disprove, and any restoration

falling into this category would remain pure speculation. As for the first option (the entry being made in 375), as long as the

entry was believed to be |['I(xoco])v, this appeared to be the most likely scenario: the tyrant's name would have been added simultaneously with

those of the only other individuals listed on the stele, and the timing would

have fit the reference to an alliance between Jason and Athens that Fabri

cius thought he saw in Polydamass speech to the Spartans in Xenophon

(Hell 6.1).57 But since Woodhead reported his measurements of the letters

on the left side of the stone in 1957, more and more scholars have come

to the conclusion that the remaining partial stroke at the end of the rasura

52. Cawkwell 1963, pp. 85-87; Marshall 1905, pp. 68-69.

53. Woodhead 1962, p. 260. 54. The closest Xenophon

comes

even to acknowledging the League's existence is at Hell. 5.4.34, where,

after narrating the Sphodrias affair, he

simply states that the Athenians "built

ships and gave assistance to the Boio

tians with all eagerness." Diodoros, on

the other hand, refers both to the estab

lishment of the League (15.28.2-4) and to the legislation recorded on the stele

of the Aristoteles Decree (15.29.8).

55. Woodhead 1962, pp. 264-265.

56. Similarly, Fabricius 1891,

pp. 591-592; Woodhead 1957, p. 370, without reference to

specific dates.

57. Fabricius 1891, pp. 593-595; see

Mitchel 1984, p. 47.


is more likely to belong to an iota than to a nu.58 An entry ending in iota

would probably signal the plural ethnikon of a city.59 But in their accounts

of Timotheoss campaign of 375 in the northwest, neither Diodoros nor

Xenophon mentions another city that would fit here: the rasura is not long

enough for jKepicupa?oJi, or even [KepKupa]i, and one of the cities of

Kephallenia other than Pronnoi is unlikely, since it would almost certainly have been included under the genitive Kecpa??fyvcov. Thus, it seems un

likely that the entry in line 111 was inscribed along with the Northwest

Group above it.60

Finally, the likelihood of the third option?an entry inscribed with the

Aegean Group in or after 373?to a large extent hinges upon the reason

for the erasure. We would be dealing with an Aegean island or with a city on Euboia, on the coast of Thrace, or in the Hellespont region. But why

would such an entry be erased?

Fabricius's argument for restoring [['I?acojv supposed that the entry was erased when Jason was assassinated in 371, "in order to maintain the

accuracy of the register." Later scholars who accepted Fabricius's restora

tion offered various reasons for the erasure. Marshall supposed defection, Accame expulsion, others a "gentleman's agreement" when it became

clear that Jason would not respect the "freedom and autonomy" clause of

the Aristoteles Decree (line 9).61 But one argument against an erasure for

defection or some similar breach of the alliance is that the Thebans?the

most infamous defectors from the League?remained prominently placed at the top of the list on the front of the stele (line 79) even after 371. Fur

thermore, if Jasons name is removed from the debate, a less sinister reason

for the erasure becomes more plausible: an error on the part of the stone

cutter.62 As Mitchel points out, however, a spelling error most likely would

have been treated as it is in line 130, where the correct letters are simply inscribed over the incorrect ones. This leaves the repetition of a League

member already inscribed on the stele "a distinct possibility."63 In his 1984 article, Mitchel proposed that the entry that was mistak

enly inscribed at line 111 and then erased was [Oepoc?ofli, which becomes

possible only if one accepts his proposal of [Oe]paicov in line 97 above. As

Cargill points out, however, this scenario requires us to believe that the

Pheraians, "mentioned nowhere in any source as members of the [League] ... were listed on the League stele not once, but twice."64 The restoration

that I propose has no more epigraphic evidence to support it than Mitchel's, but it does have the benefit of positing the repetition of a name already attested on the stone; in addition, it fits in with historical circumstances

that can be reconstructed from other epigraphic evidence.

58. Woodhead 1957, p. 372. See also Cargill 1981, pp. 43-44; Mitchel

1984, pp. 48-49; Horsley 1982, p. 142;

Cargill 1996, pp. 48-51.1 am glad to see that Rhodes and Osborne (2003; the revised edition of Tod, GHIH)

print [[[ c. 6]] in the text of the inscrip tion; see their comments, p. 105.

59. Cargill (1981, p. 44) points out, however, that the visible stroke is not

necessarily the end of the original entry;

the mason could have realized a mistake

part of the way through a name.

60. Pace Mitchel (1984, p. 51), whose arguments are based on Fabri

cius 1891, p. 592. The latter argued that line 111 could not belong to the "Island Group" below because none

among them was strong enough to

secede between 375 and 371. But

this assumes that the erasure resulted

from secession or expulsion from the

League, which is now thought unlikely.

61. See Mitchel 1984, p. 48, n. 25,

and Cargill 1996, pp. 48-49. 62. Woodhead 1957, p. 372, n. 18;

Cargill 1981, p. 44; Mitchel 1984,

pp. 48-50; Jehne 1991, pp. 125,132;

Cargill 1996, p. 49. 63. Mitchel 1984, p. 48. 64. Cargill 1996, p. 49.1 do not

follow Cargill, however, in saying that

Mitchel's proposal "strains credulity."

392 christopher a. baron

THE PARIANS

In 1936 James Oliver published a fragmentary inscription found on the

southern slope of the Acropolis that contains the end of an Athenian de

cree and the beginning of a decree of the council (synedrion) of the allies

of the Second Athenian League, both of which concern a foreign state.65

The latter decree preserves a date, stated in the form of the archon year and the month and day of the Athenian calendar (lines 14-15); with the

restoration of the archon's name (Asteios), the day can be fixed as the last

day of Skirophorion (approximately July 12), 372 B.c.66 The poor condi

tion of the stone did not allow Oliver to venture any conclusions about the

substance or circumstances of the decrees. Subsequent work on the stone, first by Adolf Wilhelm and Accame in the late 1930s, then more recently

by Martin Dreher and Charles Crowther, has revealed valuable information

concerning this inscription.67 In 1939 Wilhelm proposed that the foreign state involved in the decrees

was Paros, restoring the name in lines 9 and 13-14.68 In the meantime, Accame had cleaned the stone and, a year after Wilhelms article, published his findings as an appendix to his book on the League. Much of his new

text partially or completely confirmed Wilhelm s restorations, including the

appearance of the Parians in line 9.691 print here the end of the Athenian

decree, lines 7-14, as they appear in Rhodes and Osborne (no. 29); this

text is essentially the same as that restored by Wilhelm:70

?vayp(i\|/ai ?? x? \|rr|(pioucc Kai xoc? hxak

Xaycc? a? ?i|/r|(p[?]oavxo o? a?|i|ia%oi xo?

[?] riapio[i]? Kai axfjoai cxr\Xr\v ?v aKpo(7i) 10 6Xe[i- ei]? ?[e xnv ajvaypacpTiv xfj? oxr|?,r|?

?o[?vai x?v xapiav x]? ?r|uo A? ?paxjna?.

Ka?i[oai 8? Kai ?]7t[i c;]?via e[i?] xo 7tpuxa

[ve?ov] d? ai5pi[ov] xo?? 7t[p8a]?eic xcov (II)

[a]picov. v

65. Oliver 1936. The stone remains

in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens

(EM 12821). See Dreher 1995, pi. 1, for a

photograph of the stone, which is

in very poor condition.

66. Accame 1941, p. 231. For the

restoration of the archon's name, see

Oliver 1936, p. 463; Accame's subse

quent reading confirmed the restoration.

67. Wilhelm 1940, pp. 3-12; Accame 1941, pp. 229-244; Dreher

1995, pp. 109-154. Rhodes and Os

borne (2003, no. 29) incorporate the

readings of Crowther, who reexamined

the stone and a squeeze in the 1990s.

A summary of his results appeared in

the Center for the Study of Ancient

Documents Newsletter 2 (Spring 1996), p. 5 (available online at http://www. csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Newsletters/

Newsletter2/Newsletter2.pdf). His full

results will be published in an article to

appear in Hows 17 (pers. comm.).

68. Wilhelm 1940, p. 9. 69. Accame 1941, p. 230. Dreher

and Crowther have also confirmed the

reading, and in fact Rhodes and Os

borne now print napio[i]? in Une 9 without any of the dots of previous editors (e.g., Dreher 1995, p. 110). The restoration in lines 13-14 depends

on

the gamma at the end of line 13 being corrected to a

pi, as

proposed by Wil

helm (and accepted by all subsequent

editors) on the basis of the final letter in line 9, where the correction is nec

essary to make any sense of the text:

aKpo<7?>|?ê[i]. Crowther's text (printed by Rhodes and Osborne; see above, n. 67) now includes the Parians in line 17,

that is, in the synedrion decree itself.

70. Rhodes and Osborne 2003. The

text is Crowther's (see n. 67, above).

Note that the phi in line 8 is missing from Rhodes and Osborne's text; cf.

Dreher 1995, p. 110. The only major difference from Wilhelm's text is that

he tentatively restored n[ocpioi? Kai

Xioi?, ?]axf|Xr|v in line 9; Accame's

work on the stone showed this to be

impossible.


This passage is followed by the decree of the synedrion, which remains

highly fragmentary but seems to have involved some sort of reconciliation

between disputing parties. As far as the relationship between the decrees is

concerned, the generally accepted interpretation, put forward by Wilhelm

and Accame, is that the decree of the synedrion is in fact the diallagai men

tioned in the Athenian decree above (lines 7-8), and that the Athenian

decree orders the recording of these on the same stele.71

What remains unclear, however, is the identity of the parties being reconciled. Wilhelm ruled out an internal dispute on Paros and raised the

possibility that the decrees might record a reconciliation between Athens

and Paros after the latter had seceded from the League.72 Accame expanded on this suggestion, arguing the case for a Parian revolt from the League at

greater length. He posited that Spartan activity in the Ionian Sea combined

with the perceived weakness of Athens and the League?including factors

such as financial difficulties, Timotheos s inability to sail to the northwest

in 373, and Thebes' destruction of Plataia?could have emboldened a pro

Spartan faction on Paros.73 Dreher, however, has interpreted the decrees

as pertaining to the arbitration of an internal dispute on Paros and thus a

reconciliation between factions on Paros, rather than between Paros and

Athens. The diallagai, then, would represent not the terms of reconciliation

between Athens and Paros, but rather the "arbitration rulings" (Schlichtungs

regelungen) given to the factions on Paros by the League, acting as a third

party.74 This may indeed be the correct interpretation of diallagai. But, as

Sealey has pointed out, such a dispute on the island could have led to its

secession from the League.75 This would be especially likely if the dispute were between pro- and anti-Athenian parties.

Furthermore, the very publication of the League's decree requires

explanation. This inscription represents the only extant document of the

synedrion of the Second Athenian League. Dreher argues that this lack

of evidence results from the League's not publishing its decrees on stone, rather than from accidents of preservation.76 If it was not normal policy to inscribe decrees of the synedrion on stone, it is possible that there were

special circumstances behind the publication of the one concerning Paros, a situation that called for the prominent display at Athens of the dispute's resolution and the roles played by the Athenians and the League in that

process. A secession from the League, for any of the reasons postulated by

Accame, would seem to provide such an occasion.

In any case, one would expect that if the Parians had in fact defected

from the League, their readmission would require decrees from both the

Athenian assembly and the synedrion; and such decrees, in their usual form, would call for the Parians to be inscribed on the stele of the Aristoteles

Decree.77 Of course, the Parians were already listed on the stele?in fact, in the largest letters of what survives on the front face (line 89). But the

chances of a mistaken reinscribing of their name would be increased if, at

the same time that they were readmitted, the League was also admitting a large group of new members. In a flurry of decrees such as this situation

would have produced, the fact that one of the names was already on the

stele could easily have gone unnoticed.78 If the Parians were included on a

71. Wilhelm 1940, p. 12; Accame

1941, pp. 233-234.

72. Wilhelm 1940, pp. 6-9,12.

73. Accame 1941, pp. 236-240. See

Cargill 1981, pp. 163-164.

74. Dreher 1995, pp. 118-131.

Rhodes and Osborne (2003, no. 29) follow Drehers interpretation in their

commentary. 75. Sealey 1993, p. 63. Overall he

believes the secession hypothesis "is

possible but by no means

necessary." 76. Dreher 1995, p. 114.

77. As called for in the Aristoteles Decree (lines 69-72). See, e.g., IG II2

42 (Methymna);Tod, GHI126 (Cor cyra et al.), lines 13-15.

78. Such a scenario is envisioned by Mitchel (1984, p. 58), but with regard

to the Pheraians.

394 christopher a. baron

list given to the mason with instructions to "inscribe these names on the

stone," it is unlikely that he would check first to see whether any of the

names were already there. Nor would the name of the Parians necessarily catch his eye, since he would be working on the left face of the stone rather

than on the front.

If the reconstruction given above of Timotheos's campaign in the

Aegean in 373 b.c. is accepted, the entries in lines 112-130 would provide such a large group of new admissions. It is possible that heading the list of

these "new" members of the League would be the Parians, and they would

be inscribed on the first available line: line 111, on the left lateral face,

just below Neoptolemos, the last entry to have been made in 375. Thus a

possible restoration for this line would read [[n?pioji. One problem remains, however, and that is the date of the inscribing

of this new group. The decrees of the Athenian assembly and the synedrion

concerning Paros date to July 372, while Timotheos had returned to Athens

for trial at least by November 373, or shortly thereafter. There are two pos sible solutions. The first is to posit a delay in the admission, or at least the

inscribing, of the new members brought into the League by Timotheos in

373. This possibility is not all that unlikely, considering that after his trial

and departure from Athens, there may very well have been opposition to

recognizing his achievements, including the recruitment of a large group of allies. In addition, the nature of the entries on the left side of the stele

may reflect a "saving up" of names, which could have resulted from such

a delay. As Cargill points out, "the inference that date o? joining equals date of listing is unjustified."79 The obvious existence of numerous hands

on the front of the stele indicates that these members were listed as they

joined; but the apparent uniformity of the lettering in the entries for the

Aegean Group on the left side of the stele (lines 112-130) would indicate

the opposite.80 The lack of any geographic order within the Aegean Group also supports this argument.

The second possible explanation for the date of the decrees, which can

in fact be combined with the first, is that they were passed after the Parians

had been readmitted to the League; that is, the diallagai represent not the

official reconciliation but rather a subsequent resolution on the matter. In

this scenario, the disturbance on Paros would have occurred sometime in

the second half of 373 and been resolved by the time that Timotheos's ad

ditions to the League were to be inscribed on the stele?perhaps after his

acquittal in or around November. At that time, the Parians' name would

have been inscribed (in error) with those of the Aegean Group. The decrees

of the assembly and the synedrion from July 372, then, would represent a

final resolution of the problems on Paros; we could envision a wrapping up of business on the final day of the year. Perhaps it was at the time of these

decrees that someone finally noticed the mistake that had been made: the

Parians, the one city to attempt to leave the League up to that point, were

now listed twice on the stele of the Aristoteles Decree.

79. Cargill 1981, p. 42. 80. Cargill 1981, p. 42. Note that for

Cargill, the "sameness of hand" includes

all the names between lines 99 and 130.

Accame (1941, p. 103) posited a similar cause for the delay in the inscribing of

the Zakynthian entry (lines 131-134), i.e., concerns among the Athenians

over Timotheos's actions. Although this explanation is not necessary if one

accepts Woodhead's and Cawkwell's

suggestion that the Zakynthians were

the first entry on the left side of the

stele (see n. 8, above), the fact remains

that Accame recognized the possibility of a

lapse of time between the recruit

ment of a new member and the inscrib

ing of its name.


REFERENCES

Accame, S. 1941. La lega ateniese del

sec?lo IVA.c., Rome.

Brun, P. 1998. "Les Astraiousioi du

d?cret d'Aristoteles (IG IP 43)," ZPE 121, pp. 103-108.

Busolt, G. 1874. Der zweite athenische

Bund, Leipzig.

Cargill, J. 1981. The Second Athenian

League: Empire or Free Alliance?

Berkeley. -. 1996. "The Decree of Aristo

teles: Some Epigraphical Details,"

^f^27, pp. 39-51.

Cawkwell, G. L. 1963. "Notes on the

Peace of 375/4," Historia 12, pp. 84

95.

-. 1981. "Notes on the Failure of

the Second Athenian Confederacy,"

JHS 101, pp. 40-55.

Coleman, J., and D. Bradeen. 1967.

"Thera on IG IF 43," Hesperia 36,

pp. 102-104.

Dreher, M. 1995. Hegemon und

Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum

Zweiten Athenischer Seebund, Berlin.

Fabricius, E. 1891. "Zur Geschichte

des zweiten Athenischen Bunden,"

RhM4G, pp. 589-598.

Fauber, C 1998. "Was Kerkyra a

Member of the Second Athenian

League?" CQ 48, pp. 110-116.

-. 1999. "Deconstructing 375

371 b.c.: Towards an Unified Chro

nology," Athenaeum 87, pp. 481-506.

Horsley, G. H. R. 1982. "The Second

Athenian Confederacy," in Helle

nika: Essays on Greek Politics and

History, ?d. G. H. R. Horsley, North Ryde, N.S.W., pp. 131-150.

Jehne, M. 1991. "Iasons Symmachie mit Athen und das Mitgliederver zeichnis des 2. Athenischen See

bunds," ZPE 89, pp. 121-134.

Marshall, F. H. 1905. The Second Athe

nian Confederacy, Cambridge.

Mitchel, F. 1981. "The Nellos (IG II2 43 B35-38)," Chiron 11, pp. 73 77.

-. 1984. "The Rasura of IG 112

43: Jason, the Pheraian Demos,

and the Athenian League," AncW 9,

pp. 39-58.

Oliver, J. H. 1936. "Inscriptions from

Athens," AJA 40, pp. 461-463.

Rhodes, P. J., and R. Osborne, eds.

2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404-323 b.c., Oxford.

Scuccimarra, G. 1987-1988. "Note

in margine al Decreto di Aristo

tele (IG2, II, 43 linee 97-98)," RivStorAnt 17-18, pp. 39-53.

Sealey, R. 1957. "IG IP.1609 and the Transformation of the Second

Athenian Sea League," Phoenix 11,

pp. 95-111.

-. 1993. Demosthenes and His

Time: A Study in Defeat, New York.

Stylianou, P. J. 1998. A Historical Com

mentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15,

Oxford.

Tuplin, C. 1984. "Timotheos and

Kerkyra: Problems in Greek His

tory, 375-373 B.c.," Athenaeum 72,

pp. 537-568.

Wilhelm, A. 1940. "Vier Beschl?sse der Athener," AbhBerl22 (1939), pp. 3-29 [= Akademieschriften

zur

griechischen Inschriftenkunde 3,

Leipzig (1974), pp. 15-41]. Woodhead, A. G. 1957. "IG II2 43 and

Jason of Pherae," AJA 61,

pp. 367-373.

-. 1962. "Chabrias, Timotheus,

and the Aegean Allies, 375-373 b.c.,"

Phoenix 16, pp. 258-266.

Christopher A. Baron

University of Notre Dame

department of classics

304 o'shaughnessy hall

notre dame, indiana 46556

[email protected]